Posts Tagged ‘Propaganda’

Is Literal Christianism compatible with civilization? No. Not at all. “Literal” means, according to the mythical “Jesus” his “New Testament”, AND also the Old Testament (“Jesus” “said” this explicitly; Jesus insisted that the Old Testament was part of his message, maybe because he did not want to be condemned to death right away).

The Old Testament shows a jealous, mass-homicidal, cruel, non-sensical, sexist and demented God ruling the heavens. “Believers” are supposed to take order from that crazy monster in heavens. Literal Islam reveres the same exact God (and actually Islam reveres “The Book”, that is, The Bible, and whom he calls the “prophet” Jesus).

Literal Islam (by literal I mean straight out of Islamist texts) is NOT compatible with civilization, either. For the exact same overall reason as Literal Christianism is not compatible with civilization (that’s exactly why the Franks, and then later again, after it grew back, the Enlightenment, knocked Literal Christianism down). Literal Christianism’s implementation has been outlawed everywhere in the West. For the same reason, the same should be done for Literal Islam. Obama went to a mosque, and preached the world what Islam was, according to him, as if he were an authority in matter of Islam, to the point of telling us exactly what Islam is. I comment, you decide.

I Condemn Literal Abrahamism, But I Love Beautiful Mosque, & I Respect, Or Even Adopt, Whatever I Think Is Respectable In Islam

Obama: “…since 9/11, but more recently, since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, you [The “Muslims”] ’ve seen too often people conflating the horrific acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith.”

All too often, what? Notice that Obama is here coming to the defense of “the beliefs of an entire faith“. However, the first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. Is Obama establishing Islam, as president of the USA, by claiming that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with the beliefs of Islam?

The Qur’an (= The Recitation) consists in 80,000 words which are orders from “God”. Some, clearly, order to kill some categories of people. As far as I can see, the “terrorists” are implementing these orders, and this is also what the “terrorists” believe. The “terrorists” are, first of all, believers in an entire faith, warts and all. Missing that point, is missing how “terrorism” seduces disgruntled youth.

There are hundreds of beliefs in Islam which contradicts democracy, or even the simplest humanity. Consider Hadith 041; 6985: this Hadith, and several similar to this one, supposedly proffered by Muhammad, ask to kill all the Jews. Only then would God proceed with the Final Judgment. This is one of the central beliefs of Islam. By claiming, implicitly, that Hadith 041; 6985 has nothing to do with terrorism, is Obama saying that killing all the Jews has nothing to do with terrorism?

Obama sees a vast oppression against Muslims, all around the USA. Says Obama: “Around the country, women wearing the hijab — just like Sabah — have been targeted… Some of them are parents, and they talked about how their children were asking, are we going to be forced out of the country, or, are we going to be rounded up? Why do people treat us like that?… I’ve had people write to me and say, I feel like I’m a second-class citizen. I’ve had mothers write and say, “my heart cries every night,” thinking about how her daughter might be treated at school.”

Wow, wow, wow. Talk about hysteria. Whatever “targeted” means. Obama is depicting Muslim women “targeted around the country”, which is, as far as I can see, counterfactual anti-Americanism. It’s ironical that the President, who has condemned “anti-Americanism”, with truculence, where it is perfectly justified, engages in it, by inventing ‘facts’ trotting in his head.

I have seen pretend “women” wearing integral veils in the USA, and nobody bothered them, although it should be unlawful in the USA. The integral veil is explicitly unlawful in more and more countries, because it’s used, as in Algeria in 1950s, to carry bombs. Several African countries made it unlawful recently. To boot, Africa is really hot, and when I lived for decades, I never saw an integral veil. The apparition of those is directly related to the inception of religious “Islamist” war.

Obama: “So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”

This is not correct. First of all, Islam generally arrived in most places with dozens of thousands of slashing swords of vast moving cavalry armies. To pretend otherwise is either to be grossly ignorant of history, or a liar, or both (because one pretends to know what one does not know). I have explained this, many times. Just as I have explained many times that “Islam” means SUBMISSION, it does not mean peace, it means SUBMISSION. Obama should read me more carefully. Or then read Houellebecq who wrote the best-seller “Submission”. Instead of quoting myself, I will quote Wikipedia:

‘Islam is a verbal noun originating from thetriliteral roots-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace.[23] In a religious context it means “voluntary submission to God”.[24][25]Islām is the verbal noun ofForm IV of the root, and means “submission” or “surrender”.’

Obama knows this, and if he is following the gutter interpretation of the word “Islam”, it’s deliberate disinformation. (He is harping on the Common Misinformation that “Islam is the religion of peace”…)

Obama: …”like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”

All “faiths” have to be rooted in compassion, mercy, justice and charity, because so are human beings. One catches flies with honey, not by scaring them. Even Nazism caught its flies, its adherents, with honey. Lots of honey. Nazism was all about minority rights, justice, compassion (for those who deserved it). So compassion, mercy, justice and charity are a given in all religions. Aztec philosophers explained to the Conquistadores that the Aztec faith was much more charitable, human, merciful than Christianism (an irrelevant rejoinder, as the Conquistadores used Christianism as just another reason to massacre the Aztecs).

“Like so many faiths Islam is rooted in goodness?” Goodness is a Trojan Horse. Of around 10,000 “faiths” known, more than 99% encouraged human sacrifices (including the ancient Celtic, Punic, Aztec religions. Notice that religious barbarity does not mean primitivism in all ways: the Celts’ metallurgy was the world’s best, but they had the bad idea to burn Roman soldiers alive).

And “Islam”, Literal Islam, explicitly say, in hundreds of places, that those who kill in the name of God will go directly to Paradise (they will not have to go through the “Final Judgment”).

Obama: “Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s name. We’ve seen it before, across faiths. But right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.”

“Draws selectively from Islamic Texts”? Tu quoque (And you too). The problem is that what they draw selectively are orders from God to kill categories of people (mostly, as one can see on TV everyday, other “Muslims”, who are “misinterpreting” the sacred texts, allegedly…) If you go see an organized crime boss, and he flatters you for half an hour, then to finally say:”Kill him!”, the important part of the discourse is “Kill him”. It’s actually why Obama is surrounded by a small army, wherever he goes. Because of this very short order, possibly floating around: “Kill him!”. Obama is well protected against this order of Islamist texts, ‘kill him’, he will have secret service protection for at least a decade. The rest of us? Who cares?

Then Obama draws selectively from the Qur’an, doing exactly what Al Qaeda and ISIL do, according to him. There are magnificent sentences, or even ideas, in the Qur’an (most of them not original). Says Obama:

“O mankind,” the Koran teaches, we have “made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.”

Obama then says Jefferson was accused to be a “Muslim”. The generation of rebels just before the Founding Fathers in America, believed in “Nature’s God” and were anti-Christian (following Spinoza and the rest of the Enlightenment). Muslims, like Christians, are Abrahamists. They believe that a particular God who feels it’s cool to order parents to kill their children should be revered (and revered, just because of that particular trait: it’s spanking gone lethally insane, of the highest order of dementia). More civilized, or simply normal people, disagree strongly with finding the desire to order parents to kill their children admirable. Abrahamism could arise only in a land with too many children, prehistoric men, in the last 20 million years, would have considered that a religion which suggests to kill children is impossible, because defending children is mission number one of what defines humanity.

Jefferson, however admirable his discourses, was a great destroyer of Indians, and a pedophile who made pregnant children he had enslaved (in spite of the ultimatum of the French police in Paris).

Speaking of France, was Obama’s speech bad in all ways? No, he tried to make some medicine go down with the sugar coat:

Obama: “…there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault –sometimes by Muslims. We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone.(Applause.) And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

So none of us can be silent. We can’t be bystanders to bigotry. And together, we’ve got to show that America truly protects all faiths.”

Where is it in the Constitution that “America protects all faiths?” Certainly not: starting with Roman law more than 2,000 years ago, religions requiring human sacrifices are not protected, but, instead, outlawed. (The argument can be made that Literal Islam is a human sacrifice religion.)

After this flickering of the flame of truth, all too soon scorched by it, Obama gravely relapses through hopeless confusion:

“ Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam. I refuse to give them legitimacy. We must never give them that legitimacy. (Applause.) They’re not defending Islam. They’re not defending Muslims.”

Grand Ayatollah Obama knows Islam better than the Muslims of the Islamist State, and refuses to “give them legitimacy”. And Obama sails away:

The vast majority of the people they kill are innocent Muslim men, women and children. (Applause.)

And, by the way, the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are. We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character. (Applause.)

So the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam; we celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans. That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate. (Applause.) We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda. And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values.”

Grand Ayatollah Obama knows that we “can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values.” Apparently, our core value have to do with sheer lunacy. Reading the Qur’an front to back, in a non-censored edition shows it to be as violent as the most violent book of the Marquis de Sade. Except Sade is meant to describe the activities of plutocrats, in a parodies, whereas, when the God of the Qur’an condemns people to atrocious torture to death, again and again and again, He is serious; it’s a religious order. And implicitly enjoins his followers to do the same. See “Violence in the Holy Qur’an“.

Once again, the question is: what is Islam? Islam according to Grand Ayatollah Obama, or Sufi Islam from West Africa, is completely different from Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist Islam. But only the latter is simple to describe, because it’s in the texts, and one can ferret it, armed with the Principle of Abrogation.

Then Obama’s discourse comes close to Orwellian double-speak:

“…across our country and around the world, Muslim leaders are roundly and repeatedly and consistently condemning terrorism. And around the globe, Muslims who’ve dared to speak out have often been targeted and even killed. So those voices are there; we just have to amplify them more.”

What? We want to amplify them more, so we can target and even kill them, more?

A French study on French Islamist terrorists is just out: there are more than 8,000 now, who are known to security agencies. That’s double the number of a year ago. 20% are children. 38% are converts. All together, they have generally been recruited by… professional recruiters, and other “Muslim” leaders.

Bearing on, Obama turns into pseudo-Islamist scholar:

“These are the voices of Muslim clerics who teach that Islam prohibits terrorism, for the Koran says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths; and Muslim teachers who point out that the first word revealed in the Koran — igra — means “read” — to seek knowledge, to question assumptions. (Applause.)”

Absent an explicit denunciation of Taquiyah and the Principle of Abrogation, to describe the Qur’an that way,is all Taquiyah (lying to non-Muslims in matter of Islam).

Basically, there are statements to the contrary elsewhere in the Qur’an, and the Abrogation Principle and precise datation of the statements abrogate the preceding. All Muslim scholars know this, but Grand Ayatollah Obama behaves as if he did not. (In truth he does, of course, but an electable politician who can’t lie, can’t think.)

RULE & DIVIDE, SAY PLUTOCRATS:

Plutocrats, by defending implicitly Literal Islam, create an constant abscess, pain, and raging conflict which distracts the world from the fact it’s led by a few. I was talking to a Saudi friend yesterday, and she told me with the utmost assurance that the upper reaches of Saudi Arabia, the top Saudis were positively, absolutely totally, dedicated atheists, agnostics, etc. But, of course, only in safe private. In public, they are just the exact opposite.

Thus the Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia is just a show. Interpreted literally, though, Islam is the perfect religion to get mental retards to explode themselves in suicide missions, because, if they believe in Literal Islam, doing this is the best way to go to paradise. And they believe, so they explode.

And it’s perfect for plutocrats, because, this way, everybody talks about interpretations of a religion which rose in the desert before the Middle Ages, instead of whom it is who really rules the USA (and thus the world).

Assange leaked to the world internal documents which were top secret, showing US forces annihilating journalists and their would-be rescuers, among other things. One can imagine that Assange would have revealed a tape of Nazis shooting and killing, civilians and their would-be rescuers, and then having Sweden accused Assange of rape (Sweden was Nazi Germany’s most important willing collaborator in World War Two; it provided Hitler with its most important weapon, and its crucial high grade iron).

Who did Assange “rape”? Somebody who organized a party, for Assange, two days after the alleged “rape”… The rape was alleged later. And who is the accuser? She had been earlier arrested in Cuba as a CIA operative. (In a way the story is allegorically true: Assange “raped” the CIA!)

No wonder the Grand Ayatollah Obama cherry picks the Qur’an: anything but talking about what he is really responsible of. Like the witch hunt against WikiLeaks, for revealing American war crimes. OK, a little injection of “God” should help here.

Grand Ayatollah Obama ended thus his sacred discourse:

“May God’s peace be upon you. May God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much, everybody.”

That’s an improvement: I use to rail GAO (Grand Ayatollah Obama) for ordering “God” to bless the USA. But now GAO has sat on his rump long enough, and meditated upon that point, apparently. GAO has decided that, indeed, to order “God” to “Bless the USA” puts him, implicitly, above “God”. And that, somehow, was not “cool”. GAO wants to be “cool”. So now GAO suggests to God what to do. Progress. This is the sort of progress we have learned to expect from GAO. Changes we can believe in. Tini-tiny ridiculous little changes.

Here they were, on the magazine“60 Minutes” of CBS News, once made famous for revealing serious data about the Vietnam War. Our Lords. On the left Warren Buffet, on the right Bill Gates.

In the middle, domineering psychologically and physically, in a striking mix of self appreciating virgin Mary, and ramrod straight Marie Antoinette, Melinda Gates.

The subject? The good plutocrats make, as governments flounder, and the billionaires come to save us, by displacing and replacing it (say by replacing public schools by private “charter” schools, with the benediction of the Financial Times mesmerized Obama).

Gates Tax Free Palace, Seattle Behind

The propaganda piece told us how the billionaires were a “silver lining” in lieu of government for education, research, health, etc. Hey, the Gates, we were told, nearly eradicated polio. Things sure have changed since the Vietnam War.

The 60 Minutes interviewer was Charlie Rose (himself family connected to plutocracy). Here is his introduction:

“Today, the wealthiest 400 Americans are worth over $2 trillion… they own as much wealth as the bottom half of American households combined.

While resentment towards the super rich grows, there may be a silver lining taking shape. It turns out a lot of those rich people are giving staggering sums of money away, in what is being called a golden age of philanthropy.

And this surge in generosity is not by accident…. it was started by an influential trio: Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett… Learn more about their new club for billionaires. Membership comes with just two requirements: be worth at least a billion dollars and be willing to give half of that away.”

The report did not define what “giving” means.As we will see, it’s not “giving” at all. It’s more like the difference between leasing and owning.Or more like the difference between having capital, and having a rent. Rich people, in the Nineteenth Century, were called “rentiers”. Because they had a rent. This is what Buffet advocates. A rent. Tax free. Instead of going to the Buffet once, go there everyday. For free. Forever.

Ah, yes, because I forgot a slight detail, and so did Charlie Rose: that rent is tax free. So the difference is between taxed capital (however lightly), and tax free rent.

Nor did the report insist that money is all about controlling power. If one has power control, one does not need money. Te report alluded to that problem, just to shrug it off. How? Hell, the Gates “nearly eradicated” polio. (They did not eradicate Monsanto, though…)

“60Minutes”:”Buffett and the Gates invite pledgers once a year to exclusive resorts like Kiawah Island in South Carolina. Here billionaires attend sessions on how to give money away more effectively. Our cameras were not allowed in.”

“60 Minutes”: “This day’s agenda: it included lessons on how tools like technology can be used to transform failing schools and, with the government cutting funding on medical research, how can philanthropists step in and help spur new medical breakthroughs. But we wondered, what else goes on behind closed doors?”

Randall Lane [Forbes Magazine editor; interviewed by “60 Minutes”, as part of the segment]:

The public has a right to know who owns the world. Government is showing, you know, over the past couple decades that it can no longer solve the great problems of the day. Now these philanthropists who have incredible wealth, the problem-solving brainpower, and also the name and the influence to be able to open doors are uniquely qualified right now to solve the huge problems.

60 Minutes: But that does raise the question: do these billionaires have too much power?

Charlie Rose: There’s some people who say big philanthropy is not such a good idea, meaning that somehow you have enormous power and you’re not elected and, and that that may not be such a good idea to have people with enormous wealth to have so much influence.

Warren Buffett: Well, would they prefer dynastic wealth? Pass it on. Or would they prefer, you know, obscenely high living?

Bill Gates: …We do think we’re all gonna be smarter and do it better learning from each other. But there is no pooling of money. We celebrate the diversity of philanthropy.

Charlie Rose: “OK, so there’s no instance in which somebody could say, “Look, I mean, we got too many people of huge wealth who are having too much influence.”

Jean Case [plastic surgery billionairess]: “Well, Charlie. Think about Bill and polio, for instance. Bill and Melinda’s work in polio. I mean, they’re coming close to eradicating polio on the face of the Earth. I think when we have a couple of examples like that, people will see, that’s not power being used for personal purposes. That’s really leveraging everything you have to change the world to make it better.”

What is all this giving all about? Creating “Foundations” upon which the relatives of the hyper wealthy can get a rent, tax free, forever. It all started with Rockefeller, a century ago, and was initially blocked by all, ferociously. But times have changed. A lot.

For plutocrats, wrong is right. So when they are wrong, they feel right. By definition of what “Pluto” means.

The mythical Jesus Christ discovered this 2,000 years ago, and was very clear on the subject:“A rich man will find it more difficult to go to heavens than a camel through the eye of a needle”. It is curious that Christians are not making more noise about this.

Krugman is coming to the same conclusion as Jesus. Me too.

The true aim of economics ought to be work and energy (same thing). Instead it has evolved into theories about money, something private bankers create on behalf of the government, and give to their friends and clients.
A whole generation of economists has become rich by serving the rich with theories that help the rich. Why would they stop? They would endanger their income, power and reputation by doing so.

According to “60 Minutes“, the new power to replace government is that of the hyper rich. And therein the problem. Under Eisenhower, the upper tax rate was 93%. There few very rich individuals. Most people felt that they were owners, stakeholders, of the economy, of the society, of the country.

The USA has been going downhill ever since, in tax rates, as in its prospects.

Now we are being told that money ought to govern, not just economics, but society itself. Directly.

The Foundation Law allows plutocrats to exert power, basically tax free, forever (there is 2% tax on “investment income”). Foundations just have to spend 5% of their capital a year, but the beauty of it, is that they can spend it on themselves. And they do.

I am for universal health care. For me health care is about care, not profit. An immediate computation (see below) show that at least one third of the health care cost in the USA is plutocratic gouging.

Although covered by an expensive health plan in California, I went to a French public hospital to have my daughter (motivated strictly by the better health care there, something that became obvious on… the phone from half a world away; the pregnancy was difficult and I feel sure that my daughter is alive today thanks to that decision).I do not like Obamacare, mostly because it’s a red herring. The main problem of USA health care is that it’s health profit first, instead of health care.

Plutocrats Baucus & Liz Fowler Care To Profit, Stupid

Obama could have started to fix that with presidential executive orders (removing the chains that prevent Medicare to negotiate with health care providers; he did not do it, and he is still not doing it, as he has everybody hypnotized by “Obamacare”; an executive order there would have more effect than Obamacare).

Obamacare is also about class: you can pay more, you get more; if you are poorer, you get a substandard plan (hilariously, most of the colored ones get the substandard “bronze” plan!You colored you bronze).

Also Obamacare obviously will not solve the covering of the uncovered, as its Byzantine structure depends upon the Internal Revenue Service (something the true underclass in the USA has nothing to do with; I know several underclass people and families from several states, by the way; when was the last time Obama talked with somebody who owns just a few torn clothes and a dog? well, I am actually friends with a few of them. We talk.)

True the expansion of Medicaid may help. But Medicaid is state, and Obama controls Medicare, more than Medicaid, so why did not he want to help more?

I have had a full subscription to the New York Times for more than three decades, but this week I have been wondering if I should not cancel it.

An example: an editorial in the NYT on Friday claimed that none of the 150 million employer health insurance in the USA would be cancelled.

However, I had just I got a cancellation notice from my employer provided Aetna health plan, effective within weeks, because my plan is “substandard”. I sent a one sentence comment informing the New York Times of that fact. It was not published. Since the Obamacare roll-out 50% of my comments were censored, the worst since 2003. After I complained, that was increased to 90% (and apparently 100% in the last days).

Instead we are submitted to a deluge of anti-French and anti-German “facts”, revealed by the New York Times. Germany, not Obamacare, is causing a recession. Obviously France and Germany prevent the market and the “exchanges” to do their work.

Other facts from the New York Times’ parallel universe:

1) Germany is “hacking away at French social services“. The French Socialist Party, which controls the presidency, the national assembly, the senate, and the regions of France will be surprised to learn it is “hacking away” socialism under German orders. My comments on that were censored.

I guess it’s better for the New York Times to talk about imaginary hacking than about the French 75% tax on high incomes (above one million euros; precisely to prevent “hacking away” at social services). My comments on this were censored too.

2) The New York Times also informed us that France caused the Great Depression of the 1930s (never mind that the referenced Irwin paper was short on ideas and scholarship). The New York Times insisted that “Germany in 2013, is like France in 1930“. So Germany in 2013 is causing a Great Depression, same as France in the 1930s.

[Why don’t we talk about USA plutocrats sending emergency war supplies to Nazi Germany in 1939 to fight off France? (oops, that would be “anti-American”)]

3) Krugman pretends that he found a counter-example to the fact that loose monetary policy leads to higher interest rates, namely, you guessed it, France in the 1920s.

I presented a full page of why the effect was due to special circumstances, namely half the working age males in France were incapacitated, or dead. Showing Krugman’s scholarship missed the elephant in the bathroom: censored. Naturlich.

4) Observing that Southern Europeans are still richer than the Germans is no news fit to print in the Times. Also censored.

4) Basically, insists Krugman, Germany is causing the American government shut-down (by making the Eurozone an export demon to China).

Let me suggest another bad thing Germany did to the USA: Obamacare. It’s obviously the fault of Bismarck, a German Chancellor who introduced universal health care around 1860. Bismarck was even anti-market, thus anti-American, as the insurance companies in Germany are not for profit. Repeat: NOT for profit.

[If the insurance companies were NOT for profit, I would be for Obamacare. Actually, even as it is, I am for Obamacare… but it will not work, anyway, as its own gouging will strangle it.]

USA health care cost in excess of 18% of GDP, and ranks last in objective markers of care (rank 46 behind all developed nations, and quite a few developing ones). Germany, France, and the Netherlands spend 12% of GDP and rank best in health care worldwide (although Italy does nearly as well, with 9% GDP). Thus one can fairly say, observing that 18% – 12% = 6%, around 30% of the cost of health care in the USA is pure plutocratic profit.

It is apparently dawning on the New York Times that Europeans are not just NON-American, they have built a NON-American world. An alternative world. NON plutocratic, increasingly. The danger is extreme. According to another NYT hysterical November editorial, the republic is threatened by “populists”.

“Plutocrats vs. Populists” opines that: “HERE’S the puzzle of America today: the plutocrats have never been richer, and their economic power continues to grow, but the populists, the wilder the better, are taking over.” Proof of that the “genteel” Summers was not appointed because of “populist” opposition.While American “philanthrocapitalists” [sic!] are fighting against malaria. (Actually the Gates are interfering nefariously with the world health CARE system, many scientists are increasingly complaining.)

All this anti-European hysteria of course has to do with Obama’s Secretary of Health & Human Services declaring this week that Obamacare was a “debacle“, or it has to do with Germany so anxious to hear more from Mr. Snowden about NSA industrial espionage that it sent a member of the national assembly to pose with Snowden.

What the New York Times proposes is to replace the Republic with philanthropic plutocrats.

The USA got tremendous mileage for nearly a century from the war between the (French) Republic and various German (USA supported) fascist racial plutocrats. But now, no more. The New York times has to fight the bicephalic Franco-German republic. Well, it will not win.

As the Athenians demonstrated 24 centuries ago even a tiny Republic of the People can defeat a giant plutocracy (Achaemenid Persia). France, Germany and their immediate satellites do not make a tiny Republic, but one roughly as large demographically and economically as the USA. The European Union exported in 2012 for 2.2 trillion dollars, more than China, and about 50% more than the USA (in spite of a very strong Euro).

The Washington based International Monetary Fund has joined the American chorus berating Germany (repeating like a deranged parrot the arguments in the NYT). Howl in vain. Only one opinion matters: that of the sister republic, France. And what France believes is that she has not been serious enough and she needs to Germanize herself. The process has started: unions are starting to sit on company boards, as in Germany.

France, like Germany, believes that the economy ought to be industrious first. The world first working steam engine and steam boat was built by a French university professor motoring down a German river in 1707. That was no accident: at the time the somewhat crazed plutocrat, the so called “Roi Soleil” (Sun King) was not creating the best condition for innovation. Crazed plutocracy is not the best for anyone, but crazed plutocrats.

Obamacare was written by a Vice President at the largest health insurance company, Well Point, Liz Fowler. Under plutocratic senator Baucus. Ms. Fowler is back in the for huge profit business, big time, racking up millions off the inchoating Obamacare.

But listen to Bill Moyers, a sedate, ancient, experienced commentator from PBS. Moyers talks about “treason“, and says the situation is unheard of since the nineteenth century (when senators were not elected). He says that one should call it for what it is; a “leveraged buy-out of democracy“. He recommends to get ‘busy”.

Plutocracy is much more than simply the rule of wealth. More generally, plutocracy is the rule of the neuro-emotional complex symbolized by Pluto, the Indo-Euro-Arabian god of the underworld, known under many names through the ages: Angra Mainyu, Mara, Hades, Diabolos, Satan…

Not a positive for commoners, one would guess. So how come Plutos rule all over? Well, Plutos’ popularity is the fruit of massive Big Lie campaigns (steady campaigns of little lies piling up, also help). The cult of Warren Buffet in the USA is striking: arguably Buffet ought to be in jail, for profiteering from massive inequality he helps procreate, but, instead, Buffet, a grandfather figure, is in most Americans’ hearts.

As shown below, Maureen Dowd, star editorialist at the New York Times, claims that Pluto/Buffet, is the epitome of wisdom. This sort of wisdom, buy low, sell high, whatever it takes, is why the USA killed Allende (1973), attacked Afghanistan (officially, but secretly, as early as 1979, on the order of another grandfather figure, Jimmy Carter), invaded Iraq, etc. And why, increasingly, most people are on their knees, adulating plutocrats, their ways, notions, solutions, and forsaken world.

Hitler: Enslaved To Pluto

According to Maureen Dowd the “inspiring, compassionate and patriotic common sense” of plutocrats fully opposes the “Republicans”. Yet, of course, all what “the Republicans” do is to serve their masters, the plutocrats, and especially Buffet!

Is Dowd mad, or is she a complete idiot, or is she paid vast amounts of money, and has no other values, whatsoever, or is she using Hitler’s Big Lie technique, or is it all of the preceding?

When Ketchum, W. Bush’s Public Relation firm, sent the New York Times an editorial full of Putin’s Big Lies and absurdities, the NYT published it. Without warning the readership that it was wacko. Putin is one of the world’s most prominent Plutos. It ought to be unlawful to publish demonstrably Big Lies (and the New York Att. General agreed today with this new notion).

The NYT is the “Newspaper of record”, it sounds informative, fair, balanced and critical. Yet, the New York Times never makes a serious critique of plutocratic power. Whereas it celebrates plutocrats every day. And how. OK, OK, plutocracy is New York’s business model…

“The victory for common sense last week was not in Congress, but at Georgetown University. Speaking to an excited crowd of students and others Thursday night beneath soaring stained-glass windows, the 83-year-old Warren Buffett offered inspiring lessons in patriotism and compassion — traits sorely missing here as Republicans ran headlong toward a global economic cataclysm and gutted the food stamp program.

“I am sorry I’m late,” Nancy Pelosi murmured sardonically, as she arrived at the Buffett event. “We were busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.”

Questioned by Brian Moynihan, the C.E.O. of Bank of America, and later students, Buffett seemed happy to be back in one of his hometowns, where, as the son of an investor from Omaha who became a congressman, he had once worked…”

Milking politics for money is hereditary among the Buffets: Buffet’s dad went to Congress, Congress comes to his son. Buffet made a fortune (dozens of billions) from his political connections, starting way earlier than Nixon.

In the USA the biggest plutocrats preach at the ruinously expensive private, state sponsored, universities. For those who don’t know, Warren Buffet is a 50 billion dollar worth billionaire. Buffet is the object of a cult in the USA. Buffet is closely associated with more than a hundred equally soaring billionaires, including Bill Gates. In the USA, plutocrats form packs.

For those who admire education in the USA, let them me informed that the “cost of attendance” at Georgetown in 2013-2014 is $62,570 (that is at least 20% above the pre-tax median family income in the country). Buffet’s audience is onto the plot of mixing riches, politics, and gouging:

Buffet is the grizzled spider of plutocracy central, trillions of dollars of private wealth, steering the world as it wishes, with the USA’s top politicians “busy taking food out of the mouths of babies,” justto fit in.

Dowd writes:“five years ago, Buffett said at Georgetown, he and Gates began plotting about philanthropy and now they have enrolled 115 plutocrats pledging a majority of their net worth. “I’ve been dialing for dollars…”

Plotting plutocrats: Maureen is in love.

People such as Gates and Buffet are celebrated “philanthropists”. Not only do they steal us, but we have to say that’s because they love man.

Christ said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that for rich men to get to paradise. Gates and Buffet, and all plutocrats of the USA are thus all miracles come alive, we better kneel when those saints are on TV.

The hyper wealthy don’t pay tax, by trickery.

Worldwide, every year, tax evasion by the hyper rich is evaluated to be between 20 and 30 trillion dollars, about half of world GDP. In other words, all the debt problems and problems about paying for the welfare states don’t really exist: they are just the cost of tax evasion by the hyper wealthy.

But there is still a higher category than the mere wealthy: the plutocrats, also known as philanthropists.

Indeed: philanthropists do not pay taxes, legally. When Gates goes to Kenya, as a “philanthropist”, with private security, in a huge private jet (of a company he owns), and stays at the best hotel in Kenya with his hangers-on, and various prostitutes, it’s all… paid by taxpayers. All that luxury and power is viewed as “non profit”. Cute. Then Gates gets to steer the politics of Kenya in the matter of research and makes Kenya buys from private companies in which Gates and his friends are invested. Even cuter. Gates of hell?

Indeed, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have been pushing around onto the world the Genetically Modified Organisms of Monsanto (another name for the Gates Foundation, considering the exchanges of personnel and contracts between both).

The connection with politics, in the USA or worldwide, is how Gates and Buffet more than doubled their wealth in times when vulgar Americans’ worth slipped, big time.

“Philanthropy” has become another name for legalized plutocracy. Big plutocrats are “philanthropists”, by tax evading definition.

“I give enormous credit to Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner and frankly, even though I didn’t vote for him, President Bush.”

W.’s “great insight,” one worthy of Adam Smith, Buffet said, was expressed in 10 words in September 2008: “He went out there from the White House and he said, ‘If money doesn’t loosen up this sucker could go down.’ ”

What “sucker”? The Republic? The plutocracy? Is there a difference for Bush or Buffet, or Gates, or Pelosi, or Geithner (and his master Summers and their student, Obama)? Who is “sucking” what? Was the plutocracy “sucking” the Republic, in danger of coming down?

So money was “loosened up”? Which money? The money of the stingy Public. In exchange for what? Here is an explicit example of Buffet’s genius.

Buffet “bought” Goldman Sacks at the lowest price (for $5 billion), days after Lehman, a 158 year old bank failed, and was not rescued. How did Buffet know for sure that the same treatment was not going to be extended to Goldman? How did Buffet know, for sure, that Goldman, like Lehman, was not going down to zero? Because Hank Paulson used to be CEO of Golman? Or was there more?

Had I been president instead of Bush, I would have waited until Goldman’s price was roughly zero (that would have been a matter of minutes, if the word had come out that no government money was coming), and then nationalized it (by having the government buy all the shares). Buffet would have been wiped out.

But Buffet had no such worries: he knew full well from his friends (the ones above) that they would loosen up$60 billion of PUBLIC money to make that Goldman Sacks sucker float.

USA 2013: Hate Starving Babies, Laud Plutocrats

That 60 billion dollar public flush, of course made Buffet very much richer: his shares became more valuable, several times over. Who paid for making Buffet richer? The Public, with its 60 billions, in exchange of which the Public got nothing, except listening to Buffet’s ‘common sense’, and seeing the Main Stream Media and the top politicians, sing the praises of this mafia boss, to high heavens.

So, instead of investing in new science and technology, health care or high speed rail, the Public invested in Buffet and his close associate billionaires (who also invested in Goldman, as they were on heist too).

Sad is a country where “money changers” are viewed as the guiding lights. Nancy Pelosi, head of the democratic party in Congress, laughs that we are “busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.”

And what if it were true? Pelosi, although worth only 1% of Buffet, is immensely rich herself, owning vineyards, ski resorts, etc. A typical top politician of the USA.

What proofs of corruption do we need? How did Pelosi make all this money? She did “fund raising” half of her life, from Marin County, and then ran for office (from said county, I run there often). Just as with Buffet, Pelosi’s father was a professional politician; her own daughter has been launched that way.

FOUNDATIONS are fundamental to the implementation of thepolitico-plutocratic complex. Foundations allow to implement philanthropy, that is, plutocracy.

How does it work? A Foundation Law was passed the same day as the Income Tax Law nearly a century ago. Foundations don’t have to pay tax, they just have to distribute an amount of capital vastly inferior to what would be taken from them in taxes if they were for profit. So they can grow.

They can pay their personnel heftily, so family members can live rich and happy, on the Foundation’s money, without being hindered by things as base as inheritance tax. Monsanto can also hide behind Gates’s Foundation and tweak research away from what bothers it, at will. Worldwide.

Buffet and Gates, together, control more than $100 billion dollars. With the Gates Foundation, they control nearly $200 billions. Moreover they perniciously leverage this enormous muscle by harnessing public money. Indeed they are the ones who decide how public money is spent. Watch Obama pose as the Gates’ pets in matter of education (the lad wants money when he gets out).

In the USA, the Gates Foundation focuses heavily on “reforming” education. The Gates pose with the (naïve) president as reformers. The net result is a huge discrediting our public schools, and a significant possibility of future “privatization” (another word for plutocratization).

“We’ve got something that works and we don’t want to mess that up… I buy at silly prices… acting foolishly has proven very profitable over the preceding few years … we must figure out how to “share the bounty” said Buffet to his Georgetown audience. Yes, “silliness”, foolishness worked for him, and for his political and plutocratic friends, and their hangers-on.

Yes, here we have 117 plutocrats united to make plutocracy into the tax free foundation for a new world order. They are too idiotic to know that the definition of the old aristocracy, in the Middle-Ages, was precisely that of philanthropists who paid no taxes. (And, very precisely, the French revolution was about making aristocrats, the 2%, pay tax!)

The buy and sell cockroaches, anti-intellectuals such as Gates and Buffet, lead the world into buying and selling itself into oblivion. Because you know what? Being led by cockroaches does not a civilization save. Instead it falls into the Black Hole of the lowest values.

Abstract: Plutocracy and democracy are, by definition, incompatible. I give perspective on how and why decapitating wealth would help to restore civilization. I answer a question from one of the commenters on this site, Old Geezer Pilot: …“if the 99% were to CONFISCATE ALL THE WEALTH of the 1 %, would it amount to very much?”

In financial wealth, it would amount to only 42% (in the USA). In philosophical and civilizational import, infinitely more. It would change the atmosphere of civilization. From unbreathable, to life sustaining.

One cause of the Greater Depressionis economic inequality, which has risen to the level of the late 1920s. Economic inequality, in turn, has led to strident philosophical and even cognitive imbalances. In part because that is the ecology wealth needs to survive, in part because wealth bought universities, and the media (even in France, see below).

Mad bull plutocracy needs to be decapitated, before it causes further mental imbalance to civilization. So what would confiscation of the properties stolen by the plutocrats bring? Well, it would bring a change of mood, back from worshipping the Golden Calf, plutocracy, back to democracy.

Trashing the Goldman Calf is not just important philosophically and emotionally, it’s even important for daily life. officially, since 2008, the west has spent 8.9 trillion dollar on private banks, while cutting everything else, including fundamental scientific research (something neither India nor China has done, quite the opposite!).

The coming victory of the French Socialist party will change everything. Hollande declared that: “My true enemy has no name, no face, no party. He will never stand for election and will never be elected. Despite all this, he is in charge. My enemy is the world of finance.”

This ought to remind Obama that, having governed as if he were Romney, complete with Romneycare, there is little incentive for those who wanted change to go vote for Romney again, so they may well stay home. Just to whine that the real Romney is more scary, may not carry the day.

***

FRANCE: HEADING OUT OF PLUTOCRACY IN 3 WEEKS?

Spanish bulls for corrida are from a special, hyper aggressive breed. I saw a funny scene on video: a bull came into the still deserted arena, totally fuming. He was furious to have been deported from the wilds he enjoyed the last few years. So he charged, at an amazing speed, in such a straight trajectory that he hit the wall on the far side of the arena without deviating or slowing down any. His head went one way, its body another, and he flipped upside down in the air like a crepe.

There it laid in the sand, half dead. This is a good metaphor for plutocracy. it will not stop, it makes no sense, it is just inhabitated by Pluto. Trying bipartisanship with that, it’s Sarkozy and Obama. The former may soon jump from the Elysee palace to a judge’s hot seat.

That soon to be ex-president of France, Sarkozy, is in the same spiritual family as Thatcher and Reagan: be ever kinder to the rich, they will employ you.

True enough: ex-British PM John Major made a fortune working for the Carlyle Group, an international arms’ and financial conspiracy that makes the interface between corrupt Western politicians, the wars they organize, and the banks they feed. Tony Blair’s immense fortune is entirely made of pay-backs for his work on behalf of international plutocracy. He shows up at hedge fund, they give him enormous sums for opening his mouth, that’s how he does it. No prostitute was ever so expensive.

Same for Bill Clinton. It is thus difficult to wag the finger at Putin (who does the same, while not even waiting for the end of his rule, which, he announced modestly, will be around 2024).

Putin has to do the work all by himself, he cannot depend upon the vast pre-existing network of Western plutocracy, going all the way back when Hitler was just a wet dream, JP Morgan had, when he plotted with his young pet, the German Schacht, a quarter of a century later, one of Hitler’s creators. (Yes Schacht, one of the great criminals of history, was exonerated by the Nuremberg tribunal, although he had to attend that formality.)

The brother of the French president, Olivier Sarkozy, heads the Carlyle Group: international plutocracy is well organized. Sarko, bro of Sarko, is immensely rich.

In three weeks, Mr. Hollande, the candidate of the Parti Socialiste will be elected president of France. He will raise the top margin tax rate to 75%, he will yank the French army out of Afghanistan. That’s going to be a shot across the bow of world plutocracy. A little shot: the top USA tax rate under president Eisenhower, was 92%.

***

DOES FRANCE MATTER? YES, BUT WAS MADE INTO A PLUTOCRATIC TROJAN HORSE WITH EMU:

Cynics will laugh that one has seen that movie before. Mitterrand was elected in 1981, in the teeth of Thatcher and Reagan’s revulsion back to stone age (still unfolding, as the crash that never ends). Mitterrand, a pseudo socialist, ex-Vichy, soon had to revert to smaller objectives.

Mitterrand supported Thatcher on day one about the Falklands, while Reagan dithered, and had nothing to offer. Mitterrand trained the British military against the French weapons Argentina had, Super Etendards, Mirages, Exocets cruise missiles.

The British knew how dangerous Exocets could be: they had the world’s largest stock of them. Mitterrand gave secret codes and counter-measures, secret factory stuff. During the war the Argentines were very courageous, and capable, but often of their weapons mysteriously failed at the second of impact. Many British ships got hit with bombs that did not explode. Even the warhead of the Exocet that sank the Sheffield did not explode.

It’s highly likely that, without the secret French help, enough of her Gracious Majesty’s Navy would have ended at the bottom of the Atlantic to make the recovery of the Falklands, a really ugly affair. Lady Thatcher owed the “Sphinx” (Mitterrand). So she consented to the tunnel under the Channel, and, more importantly to the Single European Act. She also did not obstruct the European Monetary Union (EMU), probably Mitterrand’s greatest achievement.

Little did Mitterrand realize that the crafty plutocrats had infected the architecture of the EMU completely with the poisonous idea that they, the plutocrats, and they alone, could finance the EMU. And that they, and they alone, could be financed by the European Central Bank. Somehow, they imparted upon their victims that the notion that putting banks in control of the states was the most moral, most economically correct position.

That nightmare had been put in place by French socialists viewed at the time as very smart (such as Jacques Delors, Mitterrand’s finance minister, and then grand master of European construction, making Thatcher eat in his hand). In retrospect those French socialist experts were, at best, incompetent fools.

It did not struck them that the initial law passed in France in 1973 prevented the Banque de France to finance the Treasury, was passed under president Pompidou. It’s similar to Obama and his democrats not being alarmed that the health law they pushed for was a product of the right wing Heritage Foundation, and his Romney (a “private equity” quick buck artist).

Pompidou was hired in 1953 by Guy de Rothschild to work at the bank Rothschild. In 1956, Pompidou was appointed the bank’s general manager, a position he held until 1962, when president De Gaulle made him Prime Minister. This Pompidou banker became president in 1969. Naturally enough, he passed a law that has now subjugated all of Europe to the banks’ good will.

Except Britain, where banks have been nationalized in 2008.

And the French socialists understood nought, and still don’t seem to have. The socialists instituted their European welfare state as a wholly subsidized subsidiary of the banking sector. Obama seems to harbor a similar hope. The advantage is that, doing so, one does not antagonize plutocracy. The disadvantage is that history will know one was on the Dark Side, someday to be judged as roughly as the Roman Principate.

Even more remarkably, the mystification of plutocracy as socialism, economic and moral rectitude, keeps on going.

There was a debate of the ten French presidential candidates against a panel of journalists, one of them, Longlet, specialized in economy. Marine Le Pen, the National Front candidate complained that the Banque de France had lost the ability to buy treasuries. That ought to be a well known fact, at the core of the European sovereign debt crisis.

However, unbelievably, the economic journalist told her dismissively that buying treasuries would make France into Iran, or Zimbabwe. Le Pen, a lawyer by training, correctly told him that buying treasuries with its central bank was exactly what the USA has been doing. Instead of admitting that this fact was indeed a fact (that’s called Quantitative Easing), the economic specialist scolded Le Pen for knowing no economy. That Longlet was obviously paid for being lying so outrageously.

Another candidate, the highly educated Cheminade, made charges similar to le Pen, and all journalists ganged up on him because they said he had claimed that some in Britain and the USA had supported Hitler. They told him, and dozens of millions of watching French viewers, that he was a lunatic to entertain such notions. (reminder: Great Britain signed in 1935 a treaty with Hitler that explicitly violated the Versailles Treaty, as it allowed Hitler to rebuild a Navy and expand to the east, in exchange for setting up a trilateral trade system between Britain, the Empire, and Hitlerland).

The next day, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the most prominent candidate of the three from the “left of the left” is Le Pen’s fiercest adversary. She had walked off a debate with him a few weeks before (and he passed her as the third most popular candidate as a result; together they pull more than one third of the electorate!) However, confronted to the same journalist gang the next day, he condemned them for lying to Le Pen, and all of France about the Fed. Yes, Mélenchon said, Le Pen was right, and you were wrong. The gang did their best to change the conversation.

I was left with a weird impression: here were ten candidates, from the extreme right, to the extreme left, and none of them said anything really outrageous (OK, Philippe Poutou admitted that imprisoning bosses was a past time of his; but, in France this is a time honored tradition). However the journalists were deeply outrageous: they supported the established order, national or international, tooth and nail, and even provided Hitler’s sponsors with the shade they have always enjoyed.

Just as no Anglo-Saxon super capitalist could have ever helped Hitler in any way, according to those media super stars, it was also Zimbabwean for a national central bank to lend a dime to the national treasury.

Believe it or not, this is the conventional wisdom in Europe. Years ago, I was kicked out of a web site called the European Tribune, because I opposed these views. The site was managed by a highly successful, you guessed it… banker, and plenty of his colleagues on the site were enraged as I evoked all the American banks which financed Hitler, and how the USA government seized German property after WWI, to redistribute it to its plutocratic friends, and their German interface came to be known as the Nazi Party. (Conveniently the building where the records of the transactions were kept burned down: who needs fiction, when we have reality?).

Mélenchon accused the journalists to received outrageous salaries. My personal impression was worse: they are clearly paid by the financial plutocracy to utter counter-truths. All of this, notice, in France. it is of course much worse in the USA or briatin. Actually the Guardian ran an article on how scandalous it was to see Philippe Poutou, and his kind on TV. Whines the Guardian about these terrible things, equality and democracy:

“…why the equal billing?… We are seeing a lot more of Poutou, candidate for the New Anti-capitalist party, these days thanks to one of the quirks of French presidential elections that means as voting day approaches, a law kicks in giving every candidate equal air time on radio and television. It’s not just the length of time they’re given, but the quality … meaning no shunting the no-hopers off to midnight slots…Poutou stands no chance of being elected, and doesn’t want to be. Like the other no-hope candidates he is using the election to air his party’s political views..

In the USA, there are no democratic “quirks”. Hope is for sale, after being bought. Actually, there is just one party, the bipartisan party, and the president lauds it. Plutocrats give more money to whom they favor, and, in 94% of the cases (House of Representatives, Senate), the candidate who spends more get elected. In 2008, for the first time since public financing of candidate existed, a candidate refused to it, to gather much more money through private donations. That was Obama, and he out-spent, not just Clinton, infinitely, but his final opponent two to one. Wall Street fat cats financed Obama massively, while Obama hid behind millions of tiny contributions to claim it was not what it appeared to be, whatever it was (personal disclosure: I did finance Obama massively; however, to my dismay, I found out he preferred to socialize with the meowing fat cats; differently from me, they have millions to offer him, after he gets out, if he is a good boy, and that is apparently what he prefers, following in this the despicable Bill Clinton).

***

1930S: WHEN “DEMOCRACY WAS FINISHED”

The other time France went against the grain was in the 1930s. France refused to let her central bank allow banks to create massive money (a policy that was replicated as the ECB’s vicious mandate). All other leading countries did the opposite, and the Great Depression hit France longer. Economics were secondary, though, as everybody could see that another war with German fascism was looming, and war preparations were more important.

By 1936, France elected Léon Blum as socialist Prime Minister. A socialist of Jewish ancestry was the perfect answer to Hitler’s anti-Judaism. Blum passed a lot of far reaching legislation later adopted throughout the West, and now the world.

On his second time as PM, in 1938, Blum sent heavy weapons to the Spanish republic under assault from the fascist conspiracy. However it was too little too late. American plutocrats, such as the oil company Texaco, had been supplying Hitler’s and Mussolini’s armies invading Spain. It was difficult for France to fight Germany, Italy, a rebel Spanish army, and, basically, those who ruled the USA. At that point, having got rid of its strong pro-Nazi elite, Great Britain was becoming more aware of the necessity to align herself with France, instead of the sort of plutocratic propaganda of the American ambassador, Joe Kennedy.

Said Joe, on the record:”Democracy is finished in England. It may be in the USA.” Plutocracy at its best. The guy was obsessed by becoming the first Catholic president of the USA.

***

WHEN SOME OF THE RICHEST JEWS NOURISHED NAZISM:

So are we getting in a similar situation? Yes, and no. Yes, in the sense that plutocrats, hysterical at the sight of one of the leading countries freeing themselves from subjugation, are going to do their best to sabotage French socialism, in the hope to stop any momentum that way in other countries. This is what happened in the 1930s.

However this time is different. In the 1930s France, from the People to the secret services, was well aware of the conspiracy between international plutocracy and fascism (some, even in France, loved it; many of these traitors met their demise in 1944-45, when dozens of thousands were executed, more than were during the French Revolution of 1789, or the Commune’s annihilation). The secret services tried a sophisticated operation to expose the connection between Nazis, international financiers and industrialists, and even Jewish-American billionaires. That Simon Warburg affair backfired as Dutch “justice” ordered the book destroyed, worldwide (only one copy survived in Switzerland).

To this day a colossal amount of disinformation exists about the Warburg family. Although some facts are in plain sight: two of his members, for example, served on IG Farben’s board. IG Farben was the giant Wall Street created chemical monopoly that was behind Hitler, Auschwitz, and Zyklon B. It was part of a giant conspiracy set-up by Wall Street to turn around the anti-monopoly laws of Teddy Roosevelt, with the full support of the government of the USA.

The conspiracy behind Nazism boggles the mind. It extended, it extends, well after the death of the participants. In a few days I will be in Washington’s airport: it’s named after one of the main Nazi collaborators in the USA: the Dulles brothers. Now celebrating Martin Luther king’s dream is excellent, but celebrating it too much leaves no passion to condemn the implicit celebration of the triumphant duplicity of the supremacist Dulles. In other words, the martin Luther King cult, poorly executed, becomes a cover-up for the plutocracy underneath. MLK would have been the first to call attention to that.

All of this shows the importance of moods.

***

THE 1% IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE .1% IS:

Another point, and very practical: the 1% is not really the problem. The bottom half of the 1% retire on a post tax income roughly equal to the average family income in the USA. Most of them have worked very hard all their life on a post tax income of around $250,000, out of which they can invest at most $100,000, as they live typically in expensive area where it cost $150,000 to live in mediocre life (try to live in New York or San Francisco on $150,000: you will live less well than with $30,000 in, say, Montana).

The real problem is the top .1%. Their worth is above 100 million dollars. They can go anywhere, borrow for nothing (their preferred method to avoid tax). They use tax heavens, worldwide. They go to politicians, tell them what to do. To illustrate, see Barak Obama using Warren Buffet as a piece of his brain (Obama is now going around in circles with what he calls a “Buffet rule“, which says that the richest of the richest shall be taxed at 30%, half the upper margin rate of the upper middle class).

To defang the top .1% is very simple: index the capital gains tax onincome (and in particular so called “carried interest“). Leave it as now for less than a million dollars, and then bring it up to 90%. also make tax heaven unlawful.

Some say that the rich would leave if taxed and hounded throughout the West. Where? China? Siberia? Iran? North Korea? Mars?

***

PLUTOCRACY IS NOT JUST A CLASS, IT’S A MOOD, AND A HOPE:

Old Geezer observes and asks: The 1 % have treed the 99 %. So, I ask as a thought exercise, if the 99 were to CONFISCATE ALL THE WEALTH of the 1 %, would it amount to very much? Other than making us all feel better for seeing justice done, would there be much of a change? I am asking this question because I really don’t know the answer. It is NOT rhetorical.”

Excellent question. Confiscation will address vengeance and justice. Redistribution of property can have also a very positive effect on the economy, and on society.

The reason why Che Guevara failed in Bolivia is that he had not weighted enough the impact of the redistribution of land that happened in Bolivia in the 1950s. Thus the proletariat was not anxious to support him. Redistribution did not happen in Rome when the Gracchi asked for it, but something a bit like that happened under Tiberius (among the middle/upper classes). Tiberius intervened with national banks created for the occasion.

Morality: we should not believe we have nothing to do with imperial Principate Rome. By the way only 52 individuals were executed in Tiberius’ times for treason. Many were obviously very culprit, in a sordid plot, more than a decade long, that resulted in the death by poison of Drusus, Tiberius’ son. The crime was found out only 8 years later.

Confiscation can have two dimensions:

1) confiscation of wealth

2) confiscation of power.

Wealth is power, but not all power is under the form of confiscable wealth. When Putin reigns as a tsar, he uses his power. His considerable wealth is for his retirement.

Both wealth and power need to be confiscated from the plutocrats. The top 1% owns 40% of property in the USA, observes Stiglitz (Nobel Prize eco 2001). They leverage that into enormous power because they completely dominate intellectually the representatives of the PEOPLE, and the media class. .

The foremost positive effect of confiscation would be to change completely the philosophical guidance of civilization.

Take health care, USA. Obama claimed his plan, Obaromcare, is about insuring 30 million Americans not insured now. Sounds good, but not fixing the main problem, and that is the health care plutocracy, and it sucking ever more of GDP. The plan was mostly devised for those. So Obamromcare was an elaborate con job.

Look at the banks: nine trillions were given to the managements that caused the crisis, or their brothers, to invest more into “financial products”, and keep the hedge fund “industry” afloat.

So was Afghanistan: first of all, a profit for the military-industrial. So, in France, was Sarkozy cutting the taxes on the hyper rich. (Instead of having an industrial policy, as Merkel had.)

In all these abominable plots, one sees that the overall philosophy was that making the rich richer was a meta-value: from it all goodness will flow. Once that philosophy, that the key economic strategy is to make the rich richer is guillotined, one can put a completely different philosophy on the throne.

Abstract: Obama did not do much in his first three years, perhaps mostly because the left has no coherent, or even cogent, discourse. Not to say worse. An example arises with the debt crisis. In particular, with the attitude to Europe.

Wall Street seems to have given talking points: 1) Call the debt crisis a “Euro Crisis”. 2) Faced by failure of credit… propose only the lending of more money. (See FDR below.) And those talking points, the decerebrated, or corrupt left repeats at nauseam (so it’s more than a bit unfair to accuse Obambi, standing in the headlights of history).

The most well known example of completely confused pseudo left thinking emanates from the honorable Paul Krugman, Nobel and luminary from Princeton perched on the New York Times and all over TV and the world all the time (Krugman was just revealing that he was at the G30, now presided by his friend Trichet, who just stepped down as ECB chair; Krugman has much accused Trichet of being a deflating idiot, even hours before the G30 meeting, so some tensity among the suits may have been in order).

Before we can chop off the invisible hand of the conspirators of international financial piracy, we have to see where it lurks around the cookie jar (that’s us). As this essay will reveal, the “Euro Crisis” is one more Wall Street crisis, disguised this time as a Euro crisis. Everything bad used to be France’s fault, but now the Fourth Reich looms in the distance: the Bundesbank, armed with Rafale stealth bombers.

Krugman ought to know this, that it is truly another Wall Street crisis in Euro disguise. But he wants to save what he calls the “greatest city in the world” (where he was born, and lives, New York, you know, the place where Wall Street makes sure that IMF directors are treated as the worst criminals, once one has stolen their secure electronics). As Krugman professes not to read the Wall Street Journal anymore, we will condemn him to read it. And learn.

So according to Wall Street and presidential parrots, this time Germans, French and the like are asked to pay (that is, extent credit)… For Manhattan’s high rollers. Why? Because not only it’s better when others pay, but the USA is running out of money, not to say that the American middle class is showing signs of impatience with the gruesome occupation of the country’s resources by Pluto’s forces.

However Angela Merkel was trained for, and practiced, research in hard science. She is going to go for the facts, and for the hard solutions, as president Roosevelt did, long before she was born (FDR had been trained as de facto head of the U.S. Navy in WWI, also a hard science!)

***

***

December 2011. The official report of the World Meteorological Organization is out. It is catastrophic. 13 of the warmest years in the last 15 years. Including the warmest, 2010, and the second warmest, 1998. We have got close to the point where rising temperatures in the Arctic will provoke massive release of so far frozen CO2 and CH4 (methane).

And what can we read in official editorial after official editorial of the Wall Street Journal? That believing in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming (AGW) was a religion of the past. It is important that New Yorkers think in a way compatible with their sponsors’ riches.

Wall Street has not yet been occupied by the ocean, human or aquatic, as it deserves. Yet. Although it is sure to become a polder. Meanwhile, it occupies the minds of its victims.

***

WHY THE AMERICAN HYSTERIA ABOUT THE EURO?

I monitor a lot of international press. It is striking that the British, and even more the American media, are more hysterical about the “Euro Crisis” than the media of the Eurozone itself. It seems that the French press has generally much more important things to deal with, such as Syria (France is sending military equipment to the Syrian rebellion, now that the number of the assassinated is officially above 4,000).

Why is France so keen to take out one dictatorship after the other? Well, Europa needs democratic Lebensraum, as Hitler did not say. One should not forget that the USSR Russia just north, with not even two-third of French GDP, takes itself for a nuclear hyper power, when, in truth, it’s just a plutocracy (the people leading Russia, Gorbachev said on Swiss TV are not just plutocrats, but have dozens of billions stashed in places such as Switzerland).

OK, the USA is also a plutocracy, and people vote there, just as in Russia (which has its parliamentary elections on December 4). How does Putin control Russia? How does wall Street control the USA? Well, simply by controlling what people know, think, and feel.

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, in particular have led the hysteria, editorial after editorial, urging the European Central Bank to indulge in “Quantitative Easing”. The NYT even mobilized its philosophy editor to write an absurdly uninformed article about the ineptitude of the Europeans, and urge them to Quantitatively Ease. See: Opinionator | The Stone: Euro Blind (November 21, 2011).

“Euro Blind“, really? Or is it you, Mr. paid-to-“philosophize” who is Dollar Obsessed? An absurdly ignorant, and arrogant, professional philosopher, urges Europeans to have the ECB print lots of money, and give it to the profligate banksters. Hey, does not New York thrive from banking, thus the New York Times, thus its “philosophy” editors? Does not the love of money primes the love of wisdom? (As we will show below, it’s complete self interest because it turns out it’s all about New York banks, indeed!)

Obama pointed out that the Europeans “had not done the work we did here in the last few years“. Namely to give all the American public money one could find to the banks, without anything in exchange. That is quite a “work“, indeed. I give to my friends and financiers, therefore I work, says the high class escort.

Because that is what was done, and not done, in the USA: giving public money to one’s sponsors and friends, without any quid pro quo, whatsoever. That is neither socialist nor capitalistic, just kleptocratic and conspiratorial. In many an empire or state of the past, such plotting would have been viewed as high treason. But we are apparently in a new paradigm. So it always is: a new paradigm, until the heads roll, as they did before. Abusing People works, until they have had enough, rise, and destroy all in the way.

Now Obama would like Europeans to do the same in the EU as what was done under Bush and Obama in the USA. A problem, of course, is that the European Union is made of an union of democracies. And that Union has put in its constitution that the central bank is not like the central bank of the USA, as Merkel pointed out. The directors of the Fed of the USA are mostly private bankers from the realm’s largest banks. For example Jamie Dimon, head of Morgan-Chase, and a love boy of the government of the USA (which made him offerings in the past, such as Bear-Sterns), sits on the Fed. A proud fox in the hen house. Obama used to call him his friend: could not hurt, until it did!

In the USA, the rescue package for banks, shadow banks, insurance companies and hedge funds was decided by a handful of employees of the plutocracy, such as Paulson and Geithner. There was no democratic consultation whatsoever (no referendum, no vote in Congress). So much for “Democracy In America” Tocqueville was so toqué about.

By contrast, the 17 Eurozone countries all democratically voted on the rescue package for Greece, Germany and France first. Slovakia resisted for a while, pointing out Greece was much richer, much lazier and more corrupt. Everybody listened to these Slovak objections carefully, and no doubt they have been incorporated in the thinking of all and the stiffening of the Franco-German spine about what to do next. Even the Greeks had to listen to what the Slovaks said (as the Slovaks could have blocked the rescue and default package). So the Greeks learn about themselves, and the error of their ways.

Then, after the government fell, the Slovak Parliament voted for rescuing Hellas. But, fortunately for Hellas, it is been rescued under some conditions. Hélas, those may not be strict enough: why do the richest in Greece pay no taxes? Why do Greek MPs get large brand new Mercedes sedans, on the public dime? (And now that mean on the dime of Slovaks, among others!)

But let’s go back to the American hysteria about the “euro”. What’s behind it? Wall Street, of course, as I have tried to explain forever. Well I need allies. I find them where I can. Nothing like going into the lion’s den to find out about the lion. Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2011:

“Here’s an irony Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman can probably live without.

In early October, Morgan came under extreme pressure, largely due to questions about the firm’s exposure to French banks. Although that has since eased, especially in the wake of Wednesday’s central-bank-induced markets rally, the cost of insuring against default by Morgan is still elevated—and remains higher than the cost of protection on big French banks themselves.

Morgan Stanley’s cost of insuring against default is higher than the cost of protection on big French banks, Heard on the Street columnist David Reilly reports on Markets Hub.

It cost about $446,000 Thursday to insure $10 million of Morgan debt, according to Markit. This compared with $335,000 for Société Générale. On average, Morgan’s CDS cost is about $154,000 higher than that of the big three French banks—BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole and SocGen—more than three times the average premium in 2011.

In this, Morgan isn’t alone. The cost of insuring against default at Goldman Sachs is also higher than that of the French banks. That in part may reflect that the two U.S. firms are brokers, rather than more diversified commercial banks. But credit-default swaps for Bank of America are also more expensive, while the cost of protection for Citigroup is almost equal to that of BNP.

That is somewhat curious given French banks have more exposure to France and troubled euro-zone countries.”

And the Wall Street Journal to argue that the big French banks are too big to fail, whereas not so for the big American banks:

“…the higher cost of CDS for the U.S. brokers hints that markets may no longer think they are firmly in the too-big-to-fail club. Although they were essentially bailed out in 2008, both firms today face a far different, and more hostile, political climate, stoked by both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.

Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act has made it more difficult for the U.S. government to inject capital into struggling firms. For their part, regulators are focused on mechanisms to allow for the orderly wind-down of a troubled institution.

Granted, hedge funds and other traders may feel a greater need to hedge their business links with Goldman and Morgan—meaning more demand for CDS. BofA, meanwhile, is contending with a raft of U.S. legal issues. And the French banks have higher credit ratings. So, too, does France, which is still triple-A, unlike the U.S.”

So here it is, from Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. Murdoch, not Marx.

The USA money machine, the USA plutocracy is on the ropes. Why? Because both the Tea Party people (by opposition to their sponsors, such as the Koch brothers, super billionaire heirs much vested in traditional polluting industries), and Occupy Wall Street have understood that the government of the USA is little more than a tool of the plutocracy.

As a European official pointed out, the Eurozone has spent only so far 2% of its GDP supporting the financial pirates banks, whereas Britain and the USA spent 13% of GDP doing so. So the Eurozone has actually still a lot of firepower left.

***

IS KRUGMAN PAID TO GUSH ABSURDITIES?

I like Krugman, because, not only he is very intelligent, but, when called to order, he can think openly and constructively. However his primal “Keynesianism” (throw money to banks, and everything will turn good) has been invaded by Europhobia (not to say Germanophobia). Here he goes in “Killing The Euro?” (December 2, 2011):

“Can the euro be saved? Not long ago we were told that the worst possible outcome was a Greek default. Now a much wider disaster seems all too likely.

True, market pressure lifted a bit on Wednesday after central banks made a splashy announcement about expanded credit lines (which will, in fact, make hardly any real difference). But even optimists now see Europe as headed for recession, while pessimists warn that the euro may become the epicenter of another global financial crisis.

How did things go so wrong? The answer you hear all the time is that the euro crisis was caused by fiscal irresponsibility. Turn on your TV and you’re very likely to find some pundit declaring that if America doesn’t slash spending we’ll end up like Greece. Greeeeeece!

But the truth is nearly the opposite. Although Europe’s leaders continue to insist that the problem is too much spending in debtor nations, the real problem is too little spending in Europe as a whole. And their efforts to fix matters by demanding ever harsher austerity have played a major role in making the situation worse.”

OK, I will let pass the usual confusion Krugman is affected by between a currency, the euro, and a banking crisis doubled with a sovereign and private debt crisis. If anything, the euro is too strong, not too weak!

That is what Krugman claims: “Too little spending in Europe as a whole… harsher austerity have played a major role in making the situation worse.”

One can use president Roosevelt to answer Krugman. Roosevelt used to make fun of the speculators and “money changers” who proposed to borrow more after borrowing too much. How does the honorable Paul Krugman’s proposal differ from that?
Well, it does not.
FDR came with an investment plan. Then he spent. Oh, president FDR had started by closing the banks, whereas most of what Krugman has proposed is to do the exact opposite, send more money to the same corrupt banks, no conditions imposed, a la Geithner (“Quantitative easing”).

Obama tini tiny real stimulus was drowned in a much larger pseudo stimulus. The USA need a real stimulus, but no detailed proposal exist. I have long ago proposed to mimic what advanced European countries do (and what China has tried to duplicate on an emergency, nearly comical basis): augment the energetic efficiency of the economy (this includes weatherization, micro energy generation, high speed trains, etc.)

“Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money.Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence.

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”

“Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money?” This is exactly what Quantitative Easing is all about. How does that differ from what Krugman, the voice of the economic left in the USA, keeps on proposing?

Another point which thoroughly escapes Krugman: “harsher austerity have played a major role in making the situation worse.” True, to a great extent, if one ignores international airports built in the middle of nowhere in Spain, and the like.

Everybody in Europe knows that Germany, after re-unification, applied ferocious austerity, until she strayed, hand in hand with France, and went above the 3% deficit limit imposed by the Eurozone rule (as Merkel observed loudly).

German austerity was shared by all in German society, including the plutocratic class. Having union representatives on the boards of company helped. The pressure was relentless, and lasted two decades (and counting!) Two decades in which German real estate prices went down ever more, slowly, and steadily (that means German workers could afford better housing, not the cheap thrill of owning enormous debts).

And it is possible to compare: France played unfortunate partner in a doubly blind experiment. As Germany plunged in austerity, re-industrializing, teaching her workers to become more knowledgeable, and thus efficient, instead of just firing them, France splurged, introducing the “35 hour work week“, which was a distraction catastrophic to French GDP, while de-industrializing according to the hallucinogenic doctrine of the New Age familiar to Americans (industry ispassé). French real estate bubbled up, just short of the extravagant London propelled bubble in Britain. Parisians cannot afford Paris.

Meanwhile the German state(s) extracted concessions from German companies (various advantages, as long as they invested in Germany). Also Germany had a massive renewable energy program (in spite of being as north as Canada, Germany is the world number one solar power, and now a German dominated firm, Desert Tech, will install 5,000 megawatt solar south of the Atlas mountains in Morocco).

Last but not least: Germany played several times with massive monetary expansion in the past. In the early 1920s, under Schacht (a corrupt banker with a 1899 CE PhD who was JP Morgan’s friend and creature), Germany tried to avoid paying reparations to France, Britain and Belgium which its army had deliberately devastated, by igniting massive inflation. That turned out rather self defeating.

The following is completely obvious, and even Niall Ferguson has presented the argument (in the Pity of War, 1998). German inflation in the 1920s was not caused by reparations, but rather was a deliberate political decision on the part of the German government (Schacht, who then headed the nominally independent central bank) to employ it to extinguish World War I debts and reparations.

In the 1930s Nazi Germany opted for a massive spending as it scrambled to make war, not love. The same Schacht as before, the creature of unoccupied Wall Street, told his boss Hitler that would not do. Schacht had himself, with his Wall Street friends, had made it so that Hitler became Kanzler, so his clout with Hitler was enormous.

Hitler told Schacht not to worry: there was plenty of money to be found among his opponents, Jews, and various countries (cooperative, like the USA, Sweden, or Switzerland, or uncooperative countries that would be pillaged). So there is a direct relationship between massive deficit spending, and “The Holocaust”. Germans remember all this, even if they do not masterly sing about it on all rooftops of Nuremberg.

Meanwhile France opted for austerity and proper social policies (now copied worldwide, such as mandatorily paid vacations). Too much austerity by half, as France ought to have gone to war to save the Spanish republic. But then of course, the American propaganda machine from Wall Street, would have accused France to be blood thirsty and to have broken its wonderful Third Reich toy!

Germany, and France, have had the motivation to meditate all this carefully. They deduce that blindly giving more money to financiers, the ones who caused the crisis, will not work, just as it did not work in the 1920s and 1930s.

France, and Britain, also remember very well that they made a huge blunder to have not gone to war against dictators early on in the 1930s. Hence their tough line in Libya, Syria, Iran… Keeping in mind that Afghanistan is a completely different thing, just indulged in to humor the unreasonable Americans: not only did the USA attack first, but Karzai is a Sharia wielding corrupt strongman. OK, maybe strong is not the right word.

In the last few days, Iranian “students” attacked the British embassy. The embassies of the Netherlands, Germany, France have been discreetly evacuated…

Live, learn, and act accordingly. May we now restore the temple of civilization to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.